PROBLEM: Right now when someone shows up at an emergency room, we have to treat them. Emergency room treatment is very expensive.
SOLUTION: Have health clinics associated with the hospital. When someone shows up in the emergency room, triage them according to emergency needs. This would lower the cost of treating non-emergency conditions. It would lower cost to insurance companies for people with insurance and the government for people without insurance. This could help lower health insurance premiums.

Hospitals already try to do this. They're still passing those costs on to insured patients. So individuals and businesses are still paying for the uninsured and insurance companies sit in the middle siphoning off their huge profits and bringing nothing to health care.

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

PROBLEM: Portability of Policies
SOLUTION: No Group Health Insurance. Rates should be the same for individuals regardless of who they work for. Allow insurance to be shopped nationwide and on the internet. Policies should be guaranteed renewable, so you don’t lose your coverage if you change jobs or become ill. Insurance Companies could offer a variety of benefits, so you only pay for what you choose. There should be a standard for comparing policies to make them easy to understand. Employers who want to offer health insurance could put premiums in a tax-deductible flexible spending account.

This is a little all over but let me point out that currently health insurance benefits are part of employee benefits and are untaxed. This is revenue which the gov;t is not taking in and is essentially a back door form of gov't medicine, again with the insurance companies sitting in the middle making fat profits.

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

PROBLEM: PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS – If pre-existing conditions are covered unconditionally, no one would buy insurance until something happens to them. If you think mandatory insurance works, check out how many people don't have auto insurance where it is mandatory.

SOLUTION: Insurance companies would cover pre-existing conditions after a two year waiting period. There could be a High Risk Pool to help people that insurance companies won’t accept. This would work the same as States High Risk Pools for auto insurance or homeowners insurance. High Risk premiums would be higher, so people would have incentive to buy regular polices before they need it.

the entire pre-existing condition issue dances around the rather sick fact that insurance companies try to avoid the sick to maximize profits. Think about that for a second. Our health care system is based on avoiding the sick. Bizarre. Stupid. Wrong. We are the only that alloys health insurance companies to make a profit.

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

PROBLEM: UNAFFORDABLE PREMIUMS

SOLUTION: Premiums could be tax-deductible. The loss of tax revenue would be offset by the cost of paying for uninsured. For low income individuals the credit would work the same as the current unearned income credit.

You still have the issue of the uninsured. That's the real issue that President Obama's outline makes a point of addressing. By forcing the young and healthy to pay into the coverage pool you bring down costs and they're covered in case of accident or illness. As mentioned above benefits are currently untaxed which is backdoor gov't healthcare now you want to increase the lack of revenue more all the while leaving the fat parasite of health insurance companies in the middle sucking off dollars and providing nothing.

You do understand that most doctors get paid for the number of tests they order. Doctors need to be paid by salary only.

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

Supply and Demand – Universities limit the number of students admitted to medical school to keep the number of doctors down. Fewer doctors Higher Prices

Hardly. My first wife went through med school when we were married. The openings are limited to the resources available to teach them. Oh, and lets all acknowledge that those doctors are being trained it gov't supported institutions.

Originally Posted by Technologic 2

Cost shifting – Doctors should not be able to charge you more if you have health insurance then if you are on Medicare or paying cash. This is raising the cost of health insurance premiums.

Health insurance profits increase premiums. Please compare the overhead costs of medicare's administration the private health insurance companies. And where are the costs of treating the uninsured to be passed? Are you going to make it legal for hospitals to refuse treatment to the uninsured? Is that the type of society you want to live in?

Hospitals already try to do this. They're still passing those costs on to insured patients. So individuals and businesses are still paying for the uninsured and insurance companies sit in the middle siphoning off their huge profits and bringing nothing to health care.

Not really, if you show up in the emergency room with a sprained ankle, they will treat you at emergency room prices. An after hours clinic would be a lot cheaper. I also mentioned cost shifting should not be tolerated.

This is a little all over but let me point out that currently health insurance benefits are part of employee benefits and are untaxed. This is revenue which the gov;t is not taking in and is essentially a back door form of gov't medicine, again with the insurance companies sitting in the middle making fat profits.

If non-employer sponsored insurance is not tax-deductible, employer sponsored insurance should be taxed. But don't forget, if it is taxed, it would be an income to the employee therefore a tax deduction for the employer.

the entire pre-existing condition issue dances around the rather sick fact that insurance companies try to avoid the sick to maximize profits. Think about that for a second. Our health care system is based on avoiding the sick. Bizarre. Stupid. Wrong. We are the only that alloys health insurance companies to make a profit.

If insurance companies were forced to cover pre-existing conditions why would you buy insurance until you were sick? Unless you had a government that dictated that you buy insurance.

You still have the issue of the uninsured. That's the real issue that they're covered in case of accident or illness. As mentioned above benefits are currently untaxed which is backdoor gov't healthcare now you want to increase the lack of revenue more all the while leaving the fat parasite of health insurance companies in the middle sucking off dollars and providing nothing.

If insurance premiums were more affordable more people would have insurance...making premiums cheaper...allowing more people to have insurance.

Health insurance profits increase premiums. Please compare the overhead costs of medicare's administration the private health insurance companies. And where are the costs of treating the uninsured to be passed? Are you going to make it legal for hospitals to refuse treatment to the uninsured? Is that the type of society you want to live in?

If you read my ideas, everyone needs to be treated, even illegal aliens. (Again, their being here is another topic) A country as great as ours should be able to do this.

This is a country built by hard work and rewarded by profits. I can't help but notice how much you are against greedy corporations making a profit. Profit is not a dirty word. Charity is another thing this country is famous for. How many times have you seen someone with a medical problem and no money have Churches, Private Charities, and private citizens step up to help them out.

But also remember, forcing me to pay more to the government for the government to help someone IS NOT CHARITY. When I give a dollar, the person gets a dollar in benefits. If I am taxed a dollar, how much benefit do they get?

This is a country built by hard work and rewarded by profits. I can't help but notice how much you are against greedy corporations making a profit. Profit is not a dirty word. Charity is another thing this country is famous for. How many times have you seen someone with a medical problem and no money have Churches, Private Charities, and private citizens step up to help them out.

Please don't omit the particular corporations I am referring to. I stated health care corporations. You do realize we're the only country were health insurance companies are allowed to make a profit? You're willing to regulate the power companies but not health insurance companies? I am not opposed to the German model. Regulate the insurance companies and there's no need for a public option to lower costs.

Insuring there is affordable health care available to all Americans is not an anti-capitalism perspective. Please note that Switzerland has just surpassed the US as the most competitive economy. Also, you're kind of talking out both sides of your mouth in that quote. You're both arguing for "work for what you get" and "give to others".

Health CARE corporations - Doctors, Hospitals, etc. - their purpose is to provide Care to the individual. They make a profit and reward doctors for the work they do.

Health INSURANCE corporations - Insurance Companies - their purpose is to share the risk of expensive treatment among their policyholders. They make a profit to reward them for the service they provide their policyholders.

These are TWO completely different things.

Also, you're kind of talking out both sides of your mouth in that quote. You're both arguing for "work for what you get" and "give to others".

No, money I earn is mine to spend. If I want to help someone else, I can give to others who need help. I should not have my money taken from me to give to someone else.

No, money I earn is mine to spend. If I want to help someone else, I can give to others who need help. I should not have my money taken from me to give to someone else.

That is, your net income is yours to spend as you choose. After you're finished being a participating socialist by paving roads, providing clean air and water, subsidizing the cost of treating the uninsured, etc ...

I had a client that last year started charging their employees $25 per month (that's per month, not per week, not every 2 weeks, per MONTH) rather than paying 100% of their cost. 2 or 3 employees immediately cancelled their coverage. Guess what? They were just added to the "number" of uninsured Americans in the country. This was good coverage and these employees could afford $25 per month. Some people would jump all over $25 per month comprehensive (copays, prescription card, etc) coverage, but, some simply refuse to pay one dime. They will tell you they want health coverage, but only if they don't have to pay for it. I actually see this quite often. I had female employee call me to add her child to the plan when the child was diagnosed with an illness. Of course, she was subject to pre-ex because you just can't add coverage when you need it, then drop it after treatment is over. She declined the coverage when it was initially offered to her.

I will be curious to see how these people react when Obama requires them to pay for coverage. Yes, it is good that they have it, but they won't look at it that way. Americans simply aren't used to being told they have to enroll for something.

Okay....time for a Jack and Ginger to end the weekend on a good note.

PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

"It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Health CARE corporations - Doctors, Hospitals, etc. - their purpose is to provide Care to the individual. They make a profit and reward doctors for the work they do.

Health INSURANCE corporations - Insurance Companies - their purpose is to share the risk of expensive treatment among their policyholders. They make a profit to reward them for the service they provide their policyholders.

These are TWO completely different things.

No, money I earn is mine to spend. If I want to help someone else, I can give to others who need help. I should not have my money taken from me to give to someone else.

Excuse me. I meant health insurance corporations. And their purpose is to make profits for their share holders.

That is, your net income is yours to spend as you choose. After you're finished being a participating socialist by paving roads, providing clean air and water, subsidizing the cost of treating the uninsured, etc ...

I don't get this arguement....to me....socialism is the transfer of wealth. I don't think paving roads and such is a transfer of wealth. Oh sure, the money is paid to people for these services, but they are working for it. I just don't follow this logic.

Besides, many of these services that are always used as examples of socialism are handled by the states via Amendment 10 of the Constitution.

PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

"It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

So are you saying you have no problems with health care corporations making a profit for their share holders?

Not particularly. I try to avoid using their services and utilize non-profit services whenever possible.

But your question points out the glaring difference. Insurance companies bring nothing to the patient. If anything they often prevent the patient from getting care. Their business model is based on this. Regulate them or provide Americans a gov't run option that will be cheaper to administer, as already evidenced by medicare/cade's lower administrative costs and will also advocate for the patient regarding better preventative care.

I don't get this arguement....to me....socialism is the transfer of wealth. [...]

Not exactly. The simplest way to define socialism is government ownership of an economy or wealth. Transfer of wealth is somewhat related to that, but only from the perspective that in socialism, you don't own the wealth anyway. The state does.

‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Not particularly. I try to avoid using their services and utilize non-profit services whenever possible.

But your question points out the glaring difference. Insurance companies bring nothing to the patient.

Sure they do. I've stated it before. They bring a network with pre-negotiated pricing and covered services. Granted, there are a plethora of different insurance models, so there are undoubtedly some that fit that mold.

If anything they often prevent the patient from getting care. Their business model is based on this.

Their business model is based on negotiating with providers for predefined lists of services and the rates at which they will be provided. For reducing the legwork of their customers, they get to keep a percentage of the premiums.

Regulate them or provide Americans a gov't run option that will be cheaper to administer, as already evidenced by medicare/cade's lower administrative costs and will also advocate for the patient regarding better preventative care.

Medicare's administrative costs are only lower when looked at from the perspective of ratio to total expenditures. Given that those covered by Medicare generally are the most expensive to treat, that's not surprising. Regardless, that's be trod upon already. Back to the topic at hand, what is your opinion on reform along the lines of the Healthy Americans Act?

‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Wrong, they bring the money to the table to help me get services I need that there is no way I could have otherwise afforded. They do this by sharing the risk with other policyholders. When my mother spent 10 consecutive months in the hospital and ran up $1 million in bills to treat her cancer, without insurance, it would have been impossible to pay.

If anything they often prevent the patient from getting care. Their business model is based on this. Regulate them....

They already are heavily regulated. It is these regulations that state how and what they must cover. We DO need insurance reform. SEE MY ORIGINAL POST We DO NOT need a complete overhaul.

Share holders are people who invest their money. They expect a return on their investment otherwise why put their money up. What is wrong with that?

When a mortgage company lends you money to buy a house they charge you interest - that is profit. Nothing wrong with that either!

Because you're talking about people's lives. You're talking about people working to prevent the sick and dying from getting treatment. And that's all they do. They don't do research and development. They don't take x-rays. They don't wipe butts. They don't do diddly except take money out of the system. And inefficiently at that.

Not exactly. The simplest way to define socialism is government ownership of an economy or wealth. Transfer of wealth is somewhat related to that, but only from the perspective that in socialism, you don't own the wealth anyway. The state does.

Wrong, they bring the money to the table to help me get services I need that there is no way I could have otherwise afforded. They do this by sharing the risk with other policyholders. When my mother spent 10 consecutive months in the hospital and ran up $1 million in bills to treat her cancer, without insurance, it would have been impossible to pay.

So does medicare and so would a publicly run option and they would both do it for nearly 1/10 the costs.

I learned about this at a Town Hall meeting by one of the sponsors of the bill. It has some very good features (everyone should check it out) One thing I have not had anyone explain is; if insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions, what stops someone from buying the insurance when they get sick and drop it when they get better.

Because you're talking about people's lives. You're talking about people working to prevent the sick and dying from getting treatment. And that's all they do. They don't do research and development. They don't take x-rays. They don't wipe butts. They don't do diddly except take money out of the system. And inefficiently at that.

Wrong, insurance companies don't take money OUT of the system. They make it possible to afford paying for medical services.

Doctors - X-ray techs, researchers, "**** wipers", and the person who empties the trash ALL deserve to make to make a profit. So should the people who work at or lend money to insurance companies.